Chapter Seven

The Rise of Militant

In Britain, the Labour Party conference in October 1972, reflecting the huge
shift towards the left in the trade unions and the Labour Party, passed a
Militant resolution.

Militant on the march in 1971

By 3.5 million votes to less than 2.5 million, the
conference voted for a programme which included the demand for 'an enabling bill
to secure the public ownership of the major monopolies'. The conference called
on the executive to

"formulate a socialist plan of production based on public
ownership, with minimum compensation, of the commanding heights of the economy".
"This is an answer to those who argue for a slow, gradual, almost imperceptible
progress towards nationalisation." (1)

The conference was moved when Pat Wall declared: "No power on earth can stop
the organised labour movement!" He concluded by calling for Labour to win the
workers to a programme of taking power by taking over the 350 monopolies which
controlled 85 per cent of the economy.

Ray Apps seconded the resolution. He was to become almost a permanent fixture
at Labour Party conferences, so much so that when the purge of Militant took
place in the 1980s, The Times happily concluded that the conference had become
an "Apps-free zone".

Ray pointed to the 'excellent reforms' in Labour's
programme but observed that "they cannot be carried out". At this conference,
Patrick Craven, a well-known Militant supporter, received 51,000 votes in the
election for the NEC, which reflected the support of between 45 to 50 local
parties.

The week before the conference Militant recorded the significant growth in
its support: "From a four-page monthly to an eight-page weekly in 13 months."
Commenting on the progress which had been made it stated:

The first eight-page Militant is out! This is the greatest achievement of our
paper in its eight-years' life. In just 13 months it has been transformed from a
monthly four-page paper, with excellent articles, but poorly produced and drab
looking, to a magnificently produced weekly eight-page paper. Politically we
believe that Militant has always carried the best reports and clearest analysis
of events in the labour movement and the world. The great handicap has been
space. (2)

The Times had "looked hopefully towards 1972 as an improvement over the
previous year". They commented that 1971 "was not a good year for Conservatives".

1972 was even worse. The miners had shattered the government's eight per cent
wage norm, winning an increase of 22 per cent. In the miners' strike 65,000
miners out of 280,000 were involved in pickets. In answer to this, Tory Home
Secretary Carr promised to set up "mobile squads" of police to counter the
actions of the workers. The Heath government did not quite manage to do this but
Thatcher, who followed him, learnt the lessons of the 1972 and 1974 miners'
strikes and prepared the police in a paramilitary fashion to crush the miners
next time they went on strike.

Indicating the power of the labour movement, even Vic Feather, the general
secretary of the TUC in 1972, had declared: "No-one can do anything to the
unions that the unions don't want done."

Militant pointed out that

the relationship of forces between the capitalist class and the working class
is overwhelmingly favourable to the latter. But they are bound and gagged by
their own leadership. (3)

Even after these tumultuous events, the general council of the TUC were still
engaged in talks with the government!

From out of the sewer - the NF

Militant warned that the path was not going to be smooth so long as
capitalism remained. In December 1972, the National Front, the latest version of
a fascist organisation in Britain, polled 12 per cent of the vote in the
Uxbridge by-election.

Northern Ireland is sufficient proof of the fact that lodged in every
capitalist society are the psychopaths, sadists and maniacs who could make up
the shock battalions of fascism under the 'right conditions'. (4)

Militant did not fall for the nonsense peddled by some, that the National
Front and its leader, Webster, were on the eve of taking power. Only after a
series of defeats of the working class, and after a base had been created
amongst the ruined middle class and a section of the declassed workers, could
fascism pose a big threat. Even then, it would not take the classical form of
Hitler or Mussolini as had been the case pre-war. In the modern epoch, fascism
would only act as an auxiliary to a military-police dictatorship.

Indicating the big changes which had taken place in Britain, Militant's last
issue of 1972 carried a table of strikes from 1963 to 1972. In 1963, 1,755,000
days had been lost in strike action. This had risen to almost 11 million by
1970. But, in the year 1972 this had doubled to over 22 million days lost in
strike action. This was just one indication of the convulsive mood. It was no
accident that it was precisely in this period when the working class was moving
into action that Militant had made such decisive strides forward both in the
expansion of the press and in the number of supporters who filled out our ranks.
But, if anything, 1973 was to exceed in scope and importance even the events of
the previous year.

Then, as now, with the rise of unemployment and the worsening of social
conditions, the fascists and neo-fascists also began to gain some support. We
reported:

In the 1970 election, the 'Yorkshire Campaign Against Immigration' as it then
was, recorded votes of over 20 per cent in several wards. Significantly, at a
time of growing militancy, this vote fell sharply in 1971.

Yorkshire was one of the areas where racism was on the rise. Militant,
dealing with the conditions in Bradford, stated:

It is obvious that in these circumstances, pious appeals to brotherhood and
racial harmony from the well-heeled do-gooders are worse than useless... It is
not Race Relations Boards that are required, but positive action by the labour
movement. (5)

Calling for workers to mobilise against the danger of racism in the area,
Militant declared:

Many Labour leaders think if they ignore the issue it will go away. Other
local leaders pander to racial prejudice thinking that will prevent 'racial
extremists' from gaining support. No greater or more fatal mistake can be made.
The movement must be mobilised now, locally and nationally. It must be geared to
an anti-Tory, anti-capitalist campaign. (6)

As a result of the pressure of Militant supporters within the labour
movement, and particularly the Labour Party Young Socialists, the national
executive of the Labour Party sanctioned a national demonstration in Bradford,
which took place in May 1974. This was the first national mobilisation of any
section of the official labour movement against racism.

Growth of the LPYS

The Labour Party Young Socialists, as a result of the general radicalisation
of working-class youth and the consistent work of the Marxists, grew by leaps
and bounds during the period of 1972-73. This was shown at the 1973 conference
of the LPYS in Skegness where over a thousand delegates and visitors attended.

Militant reported:

The democracy of this conference is a shining example to the labour movement.
The minority of the National Committee [non-Marxists and anti-Militants in
general] submitted their own documents to the conference for discussion.
Differences were dealt with in a comradely way by the majority of delegates.
Young Socialists must fight for similar rights for minorities in the trade union
and Labour Party conferences. (7)

At the Skegness conference, there was tremendous enthusiasm for the ideas of
Marxism underlined by the biggest ever Militant public meeting held at an LPYS
conference up to then. All the fringe meetings were well attended, as was the
week-long rally which followed the conference. Militant, however, still only had
397 organised supporters by March 1973 despite its growing influence. By July of
the same year it had grown to 464.

It was not just at conferences of their own organisation that the weight of
the LPYS was felt. The representative of the LPYS on the NEC of the Labour
Party, Peter Doyle, was a key member of the Left who succeeded in getting the
NEC to adopt a programme for the public ownership of 25 of Britain's top
companies. The day after the NEC, Harold Wilson threatened that the shadow
cabinet would veto its inclusion in the next election manifesto.

Militant commented:

Is national conference the supreme policy-making body of the Labour Party, or
is it just a rally to cheer the politicians at the top? The NEC should be
inundated with resolutions of support to strengthen its hand in defending party
democracy.

At the same time we must ask why the NEC has not insisted on the full
implementation of the Shipley resolution? Which 25 companies, and why only them?
Is it the intention to nationalise their assets or as originally proposed only
for a state holding company to buy a 51 per cent share in them... If public
ownership is the best system, then it applies to the entire economy. We do not
want to take over every barbers' or fish and chip shop, but the giant monopolies
that dominate the economy, numbering some 250-300. (8)

Interestingly, Militant quoted in the same issue the comments of Denis
Healey:

We are all agreed with the need for a massive extension of public
ownership... establishing comprehensive planning control over the hundred or so
largest companies in Britain... and to extend public ownership in the profitable
manufacturing industries. (9)

Roy Hattersley, the leading right winger, also "argued in favour of
nationalising North Sea gas and oil, development land and rented property."

This decision to propose the nationalisation of the 25 companies was carried
with the decisive vote of Peter Doyle, LPYS representative on the NEC. This
indicated the crucial role which the LPYS, and through them the Marxists, played
in shaping the policy and the direction of the labour movement at this stage
(and later, as Militant supporters, Nick Bradley, Tony Saunois, Laurence Coates,
Steve Morgan, Frances Curran, Linda Douglas and Hannah Sell did over the next 15
years).

1973 seemed to demonstrate an almost unstoppable movement towards the Left
within the labour movement.

In June of that year, Militant again reported on the progress of the Clay
Cross struggle. John Dunn, a Clay Cross LPYS member and a future Clay Cross
councillor, reported:

Had other authorities built houses at the same rate as Clay Cross, we would
have had the figure of one and a half million new houses being built every year.
The complete municipalisation of all rented property is rapidly seeing the end
of all landlords capitalising on second-rate property... No child in Clay Cross
has missed his or her free school milk since 'milk-snatcher Thatcher' tried to
take it away. (10)

Meanwhile, the Clay Cross councillors were being dragged before the law
courts for refusing to implement the Housing Finance Act. The effective leader
of the struggle, councillor David Skinner, appeared before the High Court on
Monday 9 July, when judgement was reserved for two weeks. Writing in Militant,
he declared:

Our opposition was based on being honest with ourselves and the people who
put us there and because, even in local government, it is possible to assist in
changing society. To hear most councillors talk one would imagine they are
incapable of organising resistance to the impositions of the central government.
If all the Labour councils followed the example of Clay Cross it would be
impossible to carry out the Housing Finance Act.

He went on:

By not implementing the Act we have saved the working-class ratepayers
£70,000. We do not look after only the tenants but the council employees as
well. The unions claimed a one-third increase in wages which we have granted.
(11)

Later they were surcharged and banned from office.

Workers' participation or control?

At the same time, Militant devoted considerable space to dealing with the key
political and theoretical questions which had been raised in the ranks of the
workers' organisations. Because of the tendency towards sit-ins, big strikes and
the question of ownership of industry being raised in the course of this
movement, the question of workers' control and workers' management featured very
highly on the agenda of the labour movement. Mixed up with this were the ideas
of workers' participation pushed by employers' representatives and also by
sections of the trade union leadership.

On workers' 'participation' Militant pointed out:

If union officials were to rub shoulders more often with the capitalists on
joint committees, swig their whiskey, etc, then they may be more disposed to
take a 'responsible' attitude towards redundancies, rises in prices while wages
are held down, and all the other crimes of capitalism. This is the fond hope of
Heath and his crew. When stripped of all the fancy language, this is the real
essence of 'participation' as envisaged by the capitalists and their hirelings.

Amongst leftward moving workers, however, there was a keen interest in
workers' control. There was confusion over the demands for workers' control and
management which was reinforced by some on the left. Militant explained:

Both demands apply to different stages of the class struggle. Workers'
control is only possible on a mass scale in the period which immediately
precedes or just after the socialist revolution... Workers' control means that
the workers exercise control over the capitalists, checking the outgoings and
ingoings, having access to all the books and accounts of the capitalists...
Workers' management, on the other hand, comes from above and is exercised by the
workers' state, that is, the centralised soviets representing the workers as a
whole. (12)

Some right-wing Labour leaders at the time sought to discredit the ideas of
workers' control and management by denouncing them as 'syndicalism'. Militant
argued that:

The ideas of the syndicalists, that after the socialist revolution each
industry will be managed and controlled by the workers in that industry, is
completely utopian. Its implementation would lead to the complete breakdown of
the economy and society, with one industry pitted against another. It would be
impossible to implement a national plan, without which industry, science and
technique could not develop. (13)

The lessons of Chile

The Chilean events dominated the British and the world labour movement from
September onwards. It was a major item of discussion at the October 1973 Labour
Party conference. Jack Jones remarked at a fringe meeting, with Tony Benn
sitting alongside him, that he could perceive of a situation where a Labour
government, led by Benn, could come to power and be faced with the same kind of
conspiracy as Allende faced in Chile.

However, the dominating theme of the conference was a discussion around the
radical programme adopted by the national executive of the Labour Party.

The pronounced shift towards the left was reflected in the documents of
Labour's NEC. In 1972 and 1973 intense discussion took place which was supposed
to outline a programme for the following ten years during which, it was assumed
by the Labour leadership, they would be in power. The final document, Labour's
Programme 1973, was one of the most radical left, documents ever accepted by the
Labour Party.

It outlined far-reaching reforms to be introduced by a future Labour
government. It made some references to partial nationalisation of the 25 biggest
manufacturing companies. This represented a huge step forward in the thinking of
the labour movement. Militant, while welcoming this proposal, nevertheless
argued that it was still inadequate, given the crisis which faced British
capitalism.

The programme summed up, in the main, the prevailing views of left reformism
which dominated the Labour Party and to some extent the trade unions. Militant
pointed out that to nationalise 25 profitable industries represented a
fundamental attack on the very foundations of capitalism. The British ruling
class would not roll over and play dead like a playful cat.

Moreover, the conference was debating these ideas precisely one month after
the overthrow of the Allende government which had attempted to implement a
similar programme. Allende had nationalised, under the pressure of the masses,
which intensified after the failed coup of June 1973, 40 per cent of industry.

But because he did not go the whole way and take over the 'commanding heights of
the economy', Allende did not meet the demands of the masses but nevertheless
irritated the ruling class. With their power undermined, but still largely
intact, they were given time to prepare their bloody settling of accounts with
the working class. Militant called for the taking over of the 250 monopolies,
the banks and insurance companies, with compensation on the basis of proven
need.

A sometimes passionate discussion took place at the 1973 Labour Party
conference around these ideas. The conference reflected a dramatic shift towards
the left of the politically conscious section of the working class.

The 1973 programme was accepted. Militant described it as "the most
impressive programme since 1945". It was true, that compared to the Shipley
resolution which was adopted in 1972, Labour's programme was not as radical.
Moreover, a similar resolution to the Shipley one, moved this time by Brighton,
Kemptown and Walton Constituency Labour Parties (composite 34) won only 291,000
votes, with 5.6 million votes against.

At this conference the clear socialist message of Militant found a ready
response from delegates. But at the 1973 conference, enormous pressure was
exerted by the leadership on the delegates, with appeals to unite on the eve of
an expected election. The big unions in particular were mobilised to cast their
block votes against the democratic decisions of their own conferences.

At the same time, the whole leadership, including those who stood on the
right, such as Peter Shore and Denis Healey, supported the NEC's left stance.
Yet despite all the pressures, some 250 constituency parties voted for a clear
Marxist programme.

Nationalise 25 or 200?

Crucial in defeating composite resolution 34 was the intervention of the
leading left spokesman. Jack Jones of the Transport and General Workers' Union
said of our programme: "We don't think the objectives outlined there could be
achieved by the next Labour government." More significantly, Tony Benn, while
acknowleging that it was "firmly based upon the ideas of Clause IV", said that
it "confuses strategy with tactics" and that the party is "not ready for
composite 34".

Benn was the ablest and most sincere left spokesperson. But his arguments
also revealed the limits of his perspectives, programme and also his
understanding of the situation which faced the labour movement. He stood first
of all for the takeover of the 25 companies and then 'step by step' moving
towards taking over the majority of at least the big companies. His arguments
flew in the face both of the experiences of the Chilean workers and the whole
history of the British labour movement. We argued that

no lasting reform can be achieved by the next Labour government unless it
begins by first taking over the 'commanding heights' - the banks, the land and
the 250 giant monopolies - into its hands, and that this can only be done by
mobilising the movement in support of emergency legislation. (14)

Benn received loud applause at the conference for the statement: "If we do
not control or own them (the monopolies), they will control and own us." This
was a direct reflection of the pressure of the Marxists, gathered around the
Militant, on the leading lefts within the labour movement. Yet Benn and the
other lefts did not draw all the conclusions from their own statements.
Nevertheless, an indication of the mood of the conference was shown in the left
rhetoric of those to the right of Benn, the Tribunite left.

Tribune

The present Tribune leadership would undoubtedly cringe in embarrassment when
confronted with their statements of 1973. Tribune greeted the conference with
the exultant headline: "We've kept the red flag flying here." Michael Foot
characterised the 1973 programme as "the finest socialist programme that I have
ever seen in my lifetime." He was to sing a different tune in the 1980s.

As significant were the votes for Militant Ray Apps and close ally David
Skinner, who received 81,000 and 144,000 votes respectively in the elections for
the Constituency section of the NEC. 150 people attended the Militant conference
meeting and over 1,000 copies of Militant were sold. The Times summed up the
conference thus:

The doctrines of class conflict and state ownership are Marxist doctrines,
and so long as both are preached at their conference, the Labour Party must not
complain at being described as under the influence of Marxist ideas. (15)

For once, this was a truthful account of what had transpired at the
conference and what was also taking place in constituency parties and trade
union branches.

A month after the conference, however, Labour suffered a defeat in the
Glasgow Govan by-election and also recorded low votes in a number of other
seats. The ruling class were exultant and blamed Labour's programme for these
setbacks. In reality, the opposite was the case. The programme adopted by the
conference was never used to organise a bold campaign which clearly set Labour
apart from all other parties. This was particularly evident in Govan where at
least the Scottish National Party, as Militant reported "grasped that there was
a basis for a radical sounding campaign." The SNP demanded the setting up of a
Scottish Parliament with control over industry. Their slogan "Poor British or
Rich Scots", clearly related to the discovery and potential revenue from North
Sea oil.

1974 Miners' strike

The Heath government, smarting from the bloody nose which it had received at
the hands of the miners in 1972, once more decided to take them on. This was a
conscious decision to defeat the British workers by breaking their 'brigade of
guards'. The miners' work-to-rule, combined with the electrical power workers
refusal to work around the clock, ushered in a 'state of emergency'. Petrol
rationing, power cuts and a 13 per cent interest rate were introduced. Through
Heath, British capitalism quite clearly believed that this was a fight to the
finish.

Echoing the sentiments of the government, The Times declared: "We cannot
afford the cost of surrender." This mouthpiece of big business raised the
spectre of an 'authoritarian solution' to Britain's crisis. It implied that to
grant the miners' claims would result in uncontrollable inflation and in this
situation

you do not then only have cranks, or shabby men in Hitler moustaches,
advocating an authoritarian solution. The most calm and respectable people come
to believe that the only remaining choice is to impose a policy of sound money
at the point of a bayonet. (16)

Militant declared:

A victory for the miners will be a body blow to the Tories and a triumph for
the whole working class. But to win this bitter fight, the whole movement must
be mobilised and the campaign extended onto a political plane for the defeat of
the Tory government. (17)

The government in effect declared a lock-out for two days every week against
the British working class. As 1974 began Militant commented:

Many bosses had jumped the gun, laying off 554,000 workers by last weekend.
One to two million totally unemployed is predicted very soon, as the bosses use
the emergency as an excuse for sackings; 100,000 in steel alone has been
forecast. 15 million workers will be affected with the drastic cut in wages that
implies. (18)

Militant demanded: (1) Recall of the TUC conference; (2) Work or full pay;
and (3) A one-day general strike. The intimidatory methods of the government did
not have the desired effect in splitting the rest of the working class away from
the miners. The Evening Standard reported on the views of workers forced out of
their jobs in the queue on a London employment exchange: "To a man - and woman -
they were behind the miners." (19)

Nevertheless, the Heath government persisted with its trial of strength, even
resorting to openly publicising the training of the army and the police in riot
control techniques. The army displayed its prowess at Heathrow Airport. Tanks
and other military hardware, allegedly for use in 'anti-terrorist' and 'anti-subversive'
situations, were deployed. This prompted Scottish miners' leader, Mick McGahey
to say that if soldiers were asked to break a miners' strike then

I will appeal for them to assist and aid the miners. Troops are not all
anti-working class... Many of them are miners' sons - sons of the working class.
(20)

This provoked the fury of the ruling class. The London Evening Standard
carried the comments of the commanding officer of a British infantry battalion:

Give me the chance to go and pick up Mr Michael McGahey and if it turns out
to be my last assignment in the army I should die happy. The kind of remarks he
made about appealing to the troops represents a very sinister trend - not
because he made them, but because we are too weak-willed a society nowadays to
clap him straight inside for incitement to mutiny.

However, the Evening Standard, much more cautiously, summed up the thinking
of a section of the ruling class:

How far could the government rely on the army to do whatever was asked of it
in a major industrial emergency? If McGahey and his supporters appealed to
British soldiers as fellow workers, would there ever be a chance that they could
cause a military unit to break ranks?

One Glasgow soldier declared:

I wouldn't move coal. It's not my job; if the miners want to strike for more
money, good luck to them. (21)

The whole furore around this issue indicated the heightened class tensions
which existed in Britain at this stage. Militant pointed out:

Such champions of democracy as the Tories depict themselves today would not
think twice at abandoning their democratic veil if they felt it necessary. It
would be a fatal mistake to bow down to the army. (22)

Another example of the attempt at intimidation of workers was the arrest,
trial and subsequent jailing of two building workers, the Shrewsbury Two; Ricky
Tomlinson (who later earned fame by appearing in Brookside, and other TV
programmes and films) and Des Warren, (Des was sentenced to three years and
released after 30 months; Ricky got two years and was released after 18 months).

General Election

Faced with a rising tide of discontent, however, the Heath government was
panicked into calling a general election on the theme of 'Who rules - Us or the
Miners?' The February 1974 general election shaped up to the be the most
important and one of the dirtiest since 1945. The miners' action had polarised
not just society but the labour movement.

In the general election, the whole movement mobilised behind the miners and
in support of Labour. This was the first general election in which Militant
supporters were able to play a crucial role in a number of key marginal seats,
particularly through the intervention of the Labour Party Young Socialists. In
the Bristol South-East constituency, held by Tony Benn, the Tories and Liberals
were making a determined effort to defeat Labour.

A defeat for Benn would represent a blow against the whole of the Left. This
was the reasoning of the strategists of capitalism. The Times had admitted as
much: Tony Benn's "defeat... would check the whole left-wing movement in the
Labour Party at a particularly important moment." In reply to this we countered:

over 400 Labour Party Young Socialists poured into Bristol last weekend to
help the South-East Constituency Party fight this crucial marginal seat. They
came from all parts of the country, in buses, cars, and minibuses: from South
Wales, London, Gloucester, Devon, Birmingham, Coventry, Manchester, Medway
towns, Harlow, Nottingham and other places. (23)

This intervention was decisive in holding the seat for Labour. Militant
supporters played a crucial role in ensuring a Labour victory. The paper's
opponents also suggested that it was decisive in a number of seats. In view of
later charges of "sectarianism" against us, it is important to note that despite
the fact that there was no parliamentary candidate clearly supporting Militant
or Marxism, we nevertheless threw our full weight into ensuring a Labour
victory.

Yet Militant, and particularly the Labour Party Young Socialists, earned
nothing but praise, not just from those lefts like Tony Benn who publicly
recognised their role, but also from those on the right like Paul Rose, MP for
Blackley in Manchester.

At that time, Militant clearly warned that a new Labour government which
remained within the framework of capitalism could be frustrated by the serious
crisis of British capitalism.